William Jensen's Filing

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
WILLIAM W. JENSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS; THE
BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS FOR
THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS; MARY ANN
SULLIVAN; Individually and in her Official
Capacity; SAM ODLE, Individually and in his
Official Capacity; LANIER ECHOLS,
Individually and in her Official Capacity;
MICHAEL OCONNOR, Individually and in
his Official Capacity; GAYLE COSBY,
Individually and in her Official Capacity;
KELLY BENTLEY, Individually and in her
Official Capacity; and DIANE ARNOLD,
Individually and in her Official Capacity,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cause No. 1:16-cv-2047
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff William W. Jensen, by counsel, for his Verified Complaint for Damages and
Injunctive Relief and Request for Trial by Jury against Defendants Indianapolis Public Schools;
the Board of School Commissioners for the City of Indianapolis; Mary Ann Sullivan,
Individually and in her Official Capacity; Sam Odle, Individually and in his Official Capacity;
LaNier Echols, Individually and in her Official Capacity; Michael OConnor, Individually and in
his Official Capacity; Gayle Cosby, Individually and in her Official Capacity; Kelly Bentley,
Individually and in her Official Capacity; and Diane Arnold, Individually and in her Official
Capacity, states as follows:
I.
1.
INTRODUCTION
This is an action brought by William W. Jensen. This action seeks damages and
injunctive relief resulting from the Defendants tortious conduct and violations of Mr. Jensens
rights under the United States Constitution stemming from IPSs wrongful termination of Mr.
Jensen. This action is against IPS, the Board, Ms. Sullivan (in her individual and official
capacities), Mr. Odle (in his individual and official capacities), Ms. Nichols (in her individual
and official capacities), Mr. OConnor (in his individual and official capacities), Ms. Cosby (in
her individual and official capacities), Ms. Bentley (in her individual and official capacities) and
Ms. Arnold (in her individual and official capacities) (hereinafter referred to as IPS).
II.
2.
JURISDICTION
Plaintiff William W. Jensen resided in Marion County, Indiana at all times
relevant to this action.

3.
Defendant Indianapolis Public Schools is the corporate name of a public school
system located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

4.
Defendant The Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis, the
governing body of IPS, is located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

5.
Defendant Mary Ann Sullivan is the President of the Board, and she resided in
Marion County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

6.
Defendant Sam Odle is the Vice-President of the Board, and he resided in Marion
County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

7.
Defendant LaNier Echols is the Secretary of the Board, and she resided in Marion

8.
Defendant Michael OConnor is a Member of the Board, and he resided in
9.
Defendant Gayle Cosby is a Member of the Board, and she resided in Marion

10.
Defendant Kelly Bentley is a Member of the Board, and she resided in Marion

11.
Defendant Diane Arnold is a Member of the Board, and she resided in Marion

12.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over all parties.
13.
The causes of action arose in Indianapolis, Indiana which is in Marion County,
Indiana.
14.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Mr.
Jensens claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

15.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Mr.
Jensens Indiana state law claims.

IV.
16.
William Jensen is a resident and citizen of Marion County, Indiana.

V.
17.
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS
Defendant Indianapolis Public Schools is a public school system located in
Indianapolis, Indiana.
18.
Defendant The Board of School Commissions of the City of Indianapolis is the
governing body of IPS created by the State of Indiana pursuant to Indiana Code 20-25-3.
19.
Defendant Mary Ann Sullivan is the President of the Board, and she resided in

20.
Defendant Sam Odle is the Vice-President of the Board, and he resided in Marion
21.
Defendant LaNier Echols is the Secretary of the Board, and she resided in Marion

22.
Defendant Michael OConnor is a Member of the Board, and he resided in

23.
Defendant Gayle Cosby is a Member of the Board, and she resided in Marion

24.
Defendant Kelly Bentley is a Member of the Board, and she resided in Marion

25.
Defendant Diane Arnold is a Member of the Board, and she resided in Marion

VI.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Introduction
26.
This lawsuit involves IPS violating Mr. Jensens State of Indiana Constitutional
rights and U.S Constitutional rights to due process and IPS wrongfully terminating his
employment at IPS based on this denial of due process.
27.
The violations by IPS include, but are not limited to, the refusal of IPS to
reschedule Mr. Jensens hearing, IPSs failure to provide notice to Mr. Jensen of the allegations
against him and the failure of IPS to advise Mr. Jensen of his Garrity rights.
Mr. Jensens Background
28.
Mr. Jensen has been a professional educator for nearly forty (40) years. Mr.
Jensen has no prior discipline.

29.
His career includes fifteen (15) years working for IPS, fifteen (15) years with Los
Angeles Unified School District, six (6) years at Nishimachi International School, a private K-8
school in Tokyo, Japan, and two (2) years at Pulaski High School in Pulaski, Wisconsin.
30.
Many of those years were spent in the classroom as an English teacher teaching
everything from ninth grade composition to AP English Literature.

31.
Ten (10) years ago, Mr. Jensen began his administrative career and was the
Academic Dean (Principal) of the Academy of Creative Expression on the campus of Arsenal
Technical High School in Indianapolis.
32.
Most recently he served as Assistant Principal in charge of the Freshman Center
at Arsenal Tech and Assistant Principal at the IPS Longfellow Alternative School.
33.
His education includes a BA in English from Lawrence University in Appleton,
Wisconsin and an MA in Education from Indiana Wesleyan University. He earned his

Administrative Credential in School Leadership from Indiana Wesleyan in 2006.
IPSs Violation of Explicit Statutory Duty By Refusing to Even Consider Mr. Jensens
Reasonable Request to Reschedule the Hearing Date
34.
Although Mr. Jensen had longstanding pre-arranged personal family travel plans
to visit his ill brother that prevented him from attending the school board hearing on June 23,
2016 at 6:00PM, and although the Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) and the Board of
Commissioners for IPS were made aware of these plans, the school board hearing to terminate
Mr. Jensens teacher and administrator contracts proceeded without him on June 23, 2016.
35.
IPS and the IPS Board of Commissioners refused to even consider Mr. Jensens
reasonable cause justification for re-scheduling. IPS could have at least considered a new date,
but IPS refused to do so.
36.
Moreover, despite the statutory provision of the Teacher Tenure Act that requires
that the time period in [Ind. Code 20-28-7.5-2] shall be extended for a reasonable period: (1)
when a teacher or school official is ill or absent from the school corporation; or (2) for other
reasonable cause, IPS stated to Mr. Jensen that the hearing will be held June 23 without
checking with Mr. Jensen about this date, without asking him if this date was acceptable or
available or even discussing other potential dates for this hearing. It was simply a mandate from
IPS although a final written decision does not need to be made until July 13, 2016 thirty (30)
days after Mr. Jensen requested his additional private conference on June 13, 2016.
37.
After mandating the June 23, 2016 date, IPS simply refused to even consider an
alternative date. IPS could have at least considered a new date, but IPS refused to do so.
38.
This scheduling of the hearing on June 23, 2016 for which Mr. Jensen was not
present was thus a violation of the statute because it did not allow him to present evidence to
refute the reason or reasons for the termination of his contracts by IPS as required by the
applicable statute.
39.
In addition, although Mr. Jensens counsel requested by written letter that
fourteen (14) IPS employees who possess relevant evidence be present at the hearing on June 23,
2016 to testify, twelve (12) of the fourteen (14) employees refused to attend the hearing to
provide testimony. Indeed, of these fourteen (14) witnesses, only Mark Cosand, Deborah Leser
and Dr. Ferebee were present to testify. Likely, Dr. Ferebee would not have been present to
testify had IPS not called Dr. Ferebee as their own witness.
40.
Moreover, the Boards behavior during Mr. Jensens hearing was unprofessional
and disrespectful. Not only did many of the Board Members roll their eyes, make comments
during the hearing that were clearly derogatory toward Mr. Jensen and his counsel, but some,
including Board Member Kelly Bentley, did not pay much attention during the hearing, but
instead played on their cellular phones. Such disrespectful and unprofessional behavior during a
hearing about a mans forty (40) year career was completely unfair to Mr. Jensen and violated
his due process right to be heard.
IPSs Failure to Provide Notice to Mr. Jensen of the Basis For IPSs Termination of His
Employment
41.
As required by Indiana Code 20-28-7.5-2(a)(2), IPS failed to provide proper
notice or at least sufficient notice to Mr. Jensen.

42.
Specifically, IPS has failed to sufficiently notify Mr. Jensen of the reasons why it
alleged that he violated IPS Policy 3213 and IPS Administrative Guideline 3213.01.
43.
IPS provided only an overly vague summary to support its contention that Mr.
Jensen violated the named Policy and Administrative Guideline.

44.
The Policy and Administrative Guideline contained five (5) pages of duties and
directives, but IPS provided no facts whatsoever that were allegedly the basis for this violation(s)
and also provided no part of these five (5) pages of duties and directives that were allegedly
violated.
45.
Not only is there no duty or directive pointed out that was violated in these five
(5) pages, but there is an absence of sufficient facts that brought about such a violation.
46.
IPS failed to correct the due process issues raised by Mr. Jensen during a previous
termination process abruptly cancelled by IPS (although IPS had 2 months to do so).
47.
Instead, IPS added another legal basis for termination (insubordination), but again
provided no factual basis whatsoever for the claim of insubordination.

48.
During a prehearing conference on June 21, 2016, counsel for IPS could not and
would not state the factual basis for Mr. Jensens termination.
49.
Moreover, counsel for IPS stated during an additional prehearing conference on
June 22, 2016 that the information provided in the May 31, 2016 termination letter is the sum
total of the explanation of charges against Mr. Jensen.
50.
Potentially because no reason or reasons for contract cancellation were provided,
Mr. Jensen was not able to present evidence to refute the reason(s) as he was unaware of the
reasons. This lack of notice of the basis for IPSs termination also precluded Mr. Jensen from his
right to be heard because he did not know the wrong he had committed.
51.
Although the alleged notice seemingly gave a factual explanation, it actually did
52.
The new legal claim of insubordination simply had no factual support
not.
whatsoever from a review of the letter.

53.
The other two claims only were supported by the generality of a failure to
follow five (5) pages of single-spaced policy language none of which was specifically
identified in any way; nor was it revealed what Mr. Jensen did or did not do factually specifically
to violate or failure to follow any of the terms of the policy found on these five (5) pages.
Chronology of Fact Showing Due Process Violations
54.
On February 5, 2016, IPS announced that a public hearing would be held on
February 16, 2016 as to a pay raise of $60,000 and a 2-year extension for Dr. Ferebee as well as
$30,000.00 in raises to subordinates to Dr. Ferebee. IPS also announced that there would be a
Board briefing on February 23, 2016 and would vote on this matter on February 25, 2016.
55.
On February 16, 2016, a Public Hearing was held where there was opposition to
Dr. Ferebees pay raise and contract extension as well as opposition to the $30,000.00 in raises
for direct reports to Dr. Ferebee.
56.
One day later, on February 17, 2016, a parent reported the Shana Taylor matter to
Longfellow Academy. She initially reported it to Beryl Borel, who then reported it to Mr.
Jensen. Mr. Jensen, Ms. Borel, Michael Gibbs and Dr. Kevin Brown then met with the parent.
57.
On February 17, 2016, Mr. Jensen immediately contacted Ms. Leser who told Mr.
Jensen to call Ms. Tina Hester per the policy/procedure. The policy stated:
What should you do if you cant figure out what to do?
Call the Title IX Coordinator at 226-3870 or the Assistant Superintendent,
Human Resources at 226-4580, who are the primary resource persons in
these matters.
58.
Ms. Hester received the photographs and inappropriate texts from the mother of
the IPS student who was involved in the inappropriate relationship with Shana Taylor on
February 17, 2016.
59.
Dr. Ferbee also learned of at least an inappropriate relationship between Shana
Taylor and the student on February 17, 2016.

60.
Ms. Hester decided on February 17, 2016 to not involve the police and assigned
Shalon Dabney to investigate. Both were direct violations of law and policy.
61.
On February 22, 2016 at 5:45pm Ms. Dabney told Mark Cosand to report to Child
Protective Services (CPS). Mr. Jensen had become ill on the evening of February 17, 2016 and
asked Mr. Cosand to follow through with the situation.
62.
On February 23, 2016, Mr. Cosand reported the inappropriate relationship to
63.
On February 25, 2016, a vote was held on the pay raises and contract
CPS.
extension for Dr. Ferebee. The Board voted (minus 1 Board Member) to approve Dr. Ferebees
raise and extension as well as pay raises for direct subordinates of Dr. Ferebees.
64.
On March 2, 2016, the Shana Taylor story broke publicly.
65.
Mr. Jensen was ready, willing and able to go to his hearing on Monday, April 11,
2016. IPS, however, abruptly cancelled the hearing on Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:41 P.M. via
email only after counsel for Mr. Jensen inquired about the conference.
66.
This was likely based on impending criminal charges against Ms. Hester and Ms.
Dabney.
67.
Ms. Hester and Ms. Dabney were criminally charged with failure to make a
Report on April 12, 2016.

68.
Ms. Hester and Ms. Dabney were permitted to resign from their employment on
June 30, 2016.

69.
No criminal charges were ever filed against Mr. Jensen.
Mr. Jensen Followed Policy and the Direction of his Superiors at All Times
70.
During the hearing regarding the cancellation of Mr. Jensens contract, Dr.
Ferebee admitted that applicable Policy 3213.01 directed Mr. Jensen to contact Ms. Hester as the
Assistant Superintendent and head of Human Resources for IPS. Mr. Jensen did so. He was
compliant with policy.
71.
Procedure 3213.01 provides:

Call the Title IX Coordinator at 226-3870 or the Assistant
Superintendent, Human Resources at 226-4580, who are the
primary resource persons in these matters.
72.
Deborah Leser, the Director of Student Services, had also directed Mr. Jensen to
contact Ms. Hester.

73.
Mr. Jensen also sought guidance of what to do from Ms. Hester, who reports
directly to Superintendent Lewis Ferebee. Her phone number is actually included in the policy
that applies to this situation and the same policy that IPS claimed Mr. Jensen violated. Dr.
Ferebee admitted during the hearing that the phone number listed was Ms. Hesters phone
number.
10
74.
Ms. Hester directed Mr. Jensen to not provide any information to a law
enforcement officer. Lets not involve the police just yet, she stated to Mr. Jensen when he
informed her that he had an IPS law enforcement officer ready to assist with this situation.
75.
Mr. Jensen had requested IPS Officer James Sheroan to potentially transmit the
photographs and texts from the mother of the student involved with the IPS counselor. Mr.
Jensen did not see and has never seen these photographs or texts that the mother had on her
phone. The police officer who Mr. Jensen was ready to provide this digital information to, stated
to Mr. Jensen: If this involves criminal activity, I will have to make an official report. Once the
police officer told Mr. Jensen this, Mr. Jensen asked the officer to standby while he checked with
Ms. Hester. In response to this information, Ms. Hester stated to Mr. Jensen: lets not involve
the police just yet. It was Mr. Jensens understanding that Child Protectives Services and the
police work in a cooperative arrangement on suspected child abuse and neglect cases. Involving
the police would trigger the involvement of CPS and vice versa. Ms. Hester also instructed Mr.
Jensen to direct Ms. Taylor to the offices of Ms. Dabney in the morning for Ms. Dabney to
investigate.
76.
Dr. Ferebee also admitted during the June 23, 2016 hearing that the police and
CPS were one in the same for reporting child abuse.

77.
Ms. Hesters direction to Mr. Jensen is consistent with her direction to Le Boler
and the IPS Police in her February 18, 2016 email. (I asked that the school police stay out of it
so that she is not charged and we can handle from HR perspective.). In response, Le Boler
informed Ms. Hester that she saw Chief Garner sent an email to IPS Police reminding them of
the confidentiality this morning.)
78.
Ms. Hesters direction to keep the police out of the situation was also confirmed
in several news articles as well as the Probable Cause Affidavit for her criminal arrest.
11
79.
Mr. Jensen followed the policies that apply to this situation involving Shana
Taylor, and he followed the directions of his superior, Ms. Tina Hester. He followed the
applicable IPS policy and the directions of his superiors at IPS. Nonetheless, Dr. Ferebee
claimed on June 23, 2016 at the hearing that Mr. Jensen had violated IPS policy. The policy of
IPS said to contact Tina Hester which he did within minutes of receiving the information from
the mother of the student who was allegedly involved in an inappropriate sexual relationship
with Shana Taylor.
80.
Dr. Ferebee also confirmed that he did not believe there was any mal-intent
involved in the situation and that Mr. Jensen was not attempting to cover anything up.
Criminal Charges Against Tina Hester and Shalon Dabney
81.
Mr. Jensen was also aware of the criminal charges against Tina Hester and Shalon
Dabney relating to their failure to report the Shana Taylor incident as well as their guilty pleas
for violation of the law. Mr. Jensen reviewed the criminal charges against them as well as their
admissions of guilt in their plea agreements.
82.
Mr. Jensen was interviewed and investigated by the Marion County Prosecutors
Office and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department regarding the situation involving
Shana Taylor, and no charges were filed against him. Mr. Jensen was informed that the
prosecutor chose not the file charges against him.
Dr. Ferebee Learned of the Inappropriate Relationship on February 17, 2016, the Same
Date it was Reported by the Mother of the Student, but Failed to Make Any Report
83.
Dr. Ferebee admitted during the hearing on June 23, 2016 that he was aware of
the inappropriate relationship between Shana Taylor and the student on February 17, 2016 the
same day the mother reported the relationship.
12
84.
Specifically, Dr. Ferebee learned that there was a report from a parent of a
possible inappropriate relationship between a staff member and a student at Longfellow.

85.
Dr. Ferebee further admitted that he did not report the inappropriate relationship
to CPS or law enforcement either although he had a duty to do so.

86.
Dr. Ferebee received a large pay raise and bonus of $60,000.00 and a 2-year
contract extension for his nearly $210,000.00 a year job on February 25, 2016 mere days
after learning of the inappropriate relationship and failing to report it.
Interview by Attorney for IPS, David Given, Without Providing Constitutional Rights to
Mr. Jensen
87.
Mr. Jensen did not hear anything more about this situation until he was
interviewed by David Given on March 3, 2016.

88.
Mr. Given is a partner in the law firm of Faegre Baker Daniels. He introduced
himself as an attorney representing IPS, and stated that he wanted to ask Mr. Jensen questions
about the reporting of the situation involving Ms. Taylor to CPS and why it took six (6) days for
IPS to do so. This was a potential criminal issue, and there was an ongoing criminal issue
relating to this matter at the time of this interview.
89.
During this investigatory interview with Mr. Given and during a second
investigatory interview, Mr. Given failed to advise Mr. Jensen of his Garrity1 rights. Thus, any
statements made to Mr. Given cannot be used.
Ms. Hester on Behalf of IPS Suspended and Terminated Mr. Jensen for Doing What Ms.
Hester Instructed Mr. Jensen to Do
90.
On March 7, 2016, Ms. Hester suspended Mr. Jensen from his job duties.
91.
Ms. Dabney was also in the room when Ms. Hester informed Mr. Jensen of his
suspension for failure to notify CPS. Mr. Jensen then reminded Ms. Hester of her directions to
13
him, and she admitted that she had directed him not to involve the police. She also stated that she
stays in her lane of HR issues. Her phone number is included in the policy for reporting child
abuse to CPS. She is also an Assistant Superintendent of IPS.
92.
Ms. Hester admitted to Mr. Jensen that she had informed Mr. Given during her
internal investigation interview that she had told Mr. Jensen not to involve the police, and that
she was in possession on February 17, 2016 of the full set of facts and had the texts and
photographs from the mother on February 17, 2016. But she had failed to report anything about
this situation to CPS.
93.
On March 8, 2016, Ms. Hester was later charged criminally for her failures to
report to CPS terminated Mr. Jensens contract again for failure to report to CPS. She also
immediately offered him retirement in lieu of termination and possibly a $20,000 buy-out for
retirement.
94.
Mr. Jensen met with Dr. Ferebee on March 14, 2016 for a Superintendent
Conference as part of his proposed termination. During this Superintendent Conference in which
Dr. Ferebee allegedly investigated and interviewed Mr. Jensen regarding a potentially criminal
issue, Dr. Ferebee failed to advise Mr. Jensen of his Garrity rights. See Devitt, 499 F.2d at 141
(holding that nor can disciplinary action be taken against the witness for his refusal to testify,
unless he is first advised that, consistent with the holding in Garrity, evidence obtained as a
result of his testimony will not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings). (citing
Gardner, 392 U.S. 273). Thus, any statements made to Dr. Ferebee cannot be used.
95.
According to Dr. Ferebees testimony during the June 23, 2016 hearing, Mr.
Jensen made a number of admissions relating to the Shana Taylor matter and reporting to CPS.
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967).

14
Dr. Ferebee is wrong. Mr. Jensen never made any such admissions. Even if such admissions
were made, no Garrity rights were given.
96.
Dr. Ferebee testified on June 23, 2016 that during this meeting on March 14,
2016, Dr. Ferebee claimed that Mr. Jensen stated that nobody directed him not to report the
suspected child abuse or neglect to the police. This is false. Indeed, as Mr. Jensen stated above,
Dr. Hester specifically directed Mr. Jensen not to contact the police.
97.
On June 23, 2016, Dr. Ferebee testified: I concluded that Mr. Jensen was aware
and familiar with our policy and procedures as relates to reporting suspected child abuse or
neglect to Child Protective Services, and he failed to fulfill his responsibility as relates to the
policy and administrative guidelines. Also, I concluded that no one directed him not to report to
Child Protective Services. (emphasis added). This is, again, patently false. Mr. Jensen told Dr.
Ferebee that Mr. Jensen had contacted Ms. Hester upon direction of Ms. Leser and based on the
policy provision providing that he do so.
98.
Even if all of this were true which it is not Mr. Jensen did not commit neglect
of duty, insubordination and/or other good or just cause to cause his termination.
99.
Indeed, no one told Dr. Ferebee to not report to CPS or the police but he failed
to do so. And Dr. Ferebee admitted on June 23, 2016 that he also had a duty to report as to this
Shana Taylor situation.
100.
Dr. Ferebee also testified on June 23, 2016 that it was not his job as a chief
executive and Superintendent to ask what kind of inappropriate relationship once he learned of
an inappropriate relationship.
101.
Indeed, it is now clear to Mr. Jensen that Dr. Ferebee had already made his
decision to terminate Mr. Jensen prior to the Superintendent Conference on March 14, 2016 as
Dr. Ferebee admitted during the hearing on June 23, 2016 that he and Ms. Hester together made
15
the Principals Preliminary Decision to terminate Mr. Jensen prior to his meeting with Dr.
Ferebee on March 14, 2016.
102.
Specifically, Dr. Ferebee testified on June 23, 2016: We well, I should say I
and the administrative team made a recommendation to terminate the teacher and administrative
contract for Mr. Jensen, and Mr. Jensen requested a hearing with the superintendent.
103.
Mr. Jensens Superintendent Conferences with Dr. Ferebee were clearly pointless
as Dr. Ferebee had already made his decision to terminate Mr. Jensen.
Dr. Ferebees Further Violations of Procedure 3213.01
104.
Dr. Ferebee himself violated the policy in many ways. Not only did he fail to
report the inappropriate relationship between Shana Taylor and the student which he admits he
failed to do but he (or individuals at his direction) also violated policy 3213.01 by knowingly
assessing and interviewing the victim as well as the perpetrator which is in direct violation of
his policy. (Do not discuss the matter with the alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator, staff
members, or family members of the child.).
105.
Indeed, Dr. Ferebee testified on June 23, 2016 that Dr. Hester reported to him on
February 17, 2016 that [t]hat the matter was being investigated and the employee in question
was being brought in for additional questions related to that matter.
106.
Based on this direct violation of Policy 3213.01, the perpetrator, Shana Taylor,
attempted to visit the victim following her interview with IPS seemingly to request the victim to
recant his story. (Also, we got a call from [A.H.]s mom that Ms [sic] Taylor showed up at their
apartment this morning after her meeting with you.).
107.
Moreover, Dr. Ferebee testified that it was his responsibility to establish those
policies, procedures, and training, not to deliver those. In other words, it is not Dr. Ferebees
16
responsibility according to Dr. Ferebee to make sure the policies and procedures are
followed, even a policy relating to sexual abuse of IPS children.
IPSs Second Termination Attempt of Mr. Jensen
108.
Mr. Jensen was ready, willing and able to go to his hearing on Monday, April 11,
2016. IPS, however, abruptly cancelled the hearing on Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:41 P.M. via
109.
It appears that Mr. Jensens conference was cancelled on the eve as IPSs Human
Resources Operations Officer, Tina Hester, and IPSs Title IX Coordinator, Shalon Dabney,
were criminally charged for their failure to report the Shana Taylor matter to CPS on April 12,
2016 (although the Probable Cause Affidavit was signed on April 10, 2016).
110.
After abruptly cancelling the hearing on April 8, 2016, IPS chose to wait an
additional 2 months to allegedly sort through the due process issues raised by Mr. Jensen
before rescheduling this hearing. IPS, however, failed to rectify any of the raised due process
issues or ever consult with counsel for Mr. Jensen about these due process issues. Indeed, instead
of rectifying these due process issues, IPS added another legal basis for termination without any
factual basis further violating due process.
111.
Because IPS failed to make a written decision within thirty (30) days of Mr.
Jensens first request for a private conference with the Board, IPS waived its ability to terminate
Mr. Jensen on the factual basis of making a report to CPS in the Shana Taylor Matter. IPS,
therefore, was estopped from proceeding with the hearing on June 23, 2016 because of IPSs
failure to comply with the statute as specifically required by the statute.
112.
Indiana Code 20-28-7.5-2 provides that [t]he final decision must be in writing
and must be made not more than thirty (30) days after the governing body receives the teachers
request for the additional private conference. Mr. Jensen first requested a private conference
17
with the Board on March 17, 2016. Although Mr. Jensen was ready, willing and able to attend
his hearing on April 11, 2016, IPS cancelled the hearing on Friday, April 8, 2016 at 8:41 P.M via
113.
On May 31, 2016 2 months late from the cancellation Mr. Jensen was again
informed that his contract was being terminated by IPS, but this time the recommendation to do
so was made by Joyce Akridge. This is a person that Mr. Jensen has never met, never talked to,
and is totally unfamiliar with. She could not have had any knowledge about Mr. Jensens actions
or inactions in this matter because she was not involved in any way. Yet it was based on her
recommendation that Lewis Ferebee decided to terminate Mr. Jensens contract.
June 23, 2016 Hearing was Held Without Mr. Jensen Present
114.
A hearing was held on June 23, 2016 in Mr. Jensens matter.
115.
During that hearing, the Board and its counsel, Jonathan L. Mayes, initially
refused to answer whether Mr. Jensens hearing was being recorded:

Mr. Betz:
This is a question. I got my

motions. Who is recording this?
Vice President Odle: Well, it might be your

question, but we dont have to answer.
Mr. Betz:
Youre not going to answer my

question?
Vice President Odle: No.

116.
Once the Board finally confirmed that the hearing was being recorded, the Board
then refused to state when Mr. Jensen would have access to the recording.
117.
Indeed, the Board went so far as to threaten to remove Mr. Betzs camera
equipment and Mr. Betz from the Board hearing:

Mr. Betz:
You threatened me to take my
18
equipment and remove me from the hearing all over

the simple issue of getting access to the
recording.
Longfellow 12
118.
IPS also failed to terminate the members of the Longfellow 12 (except Mr.
Jensen and Ms. Leser). These are the individuals who knew about the inappropriate relationship,
but failed to report it.
119.
The Longfellow 12 include the following individuals: (1) Lewis Ferebee; (2) Le
Boler; (3) Wanda Legrand; (4) Tina Hester; (5) Shalon Dabney; (6) Deb Leser; (7) William
Jensen; (8) Mark Cosand; (9) Beryl Borel; (10) Michael Gibbs; (11) Dr. Kevin Brown; and (12)
Sandy Bombic.
VII.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
COUNT I
(Refusal to Reschedule Hearing for a Date and Time When Mr. Jensen Could be Available
for His Own Hearing in Violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
120.
Mr. Jensen incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 119 above and, in
addition, states that IPS, the Board, Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Odle, Ms. Nichols, Mr. OConnor, Ms.
Cosby, Ms. Bentley and Ms. Arnold refused to reschedule Mr. Jensens hearing for a date and
time when Mr. Jensen could be available for his own hearing, in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
121.
Mr. Jensen suffered the deprivation of his rights, liberties and immunities as
secured and guaranteed under the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and the
State of Indiana.
122.
The failure to provide Mr. Jensen sufficient procedural due process protections by
refusing to reschedule Mr. Jensens hearing for a date and time when Mr. Jensen could be
available for his own hearing was in direct violation of Mr. Jensens constitutional rights and
19
guarantees as secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and the Right to Due Course of Law under Article I, Section 12 of the
Indiana Constitution. He was denied his right to be heard because he was not notified of his
alleged wrong.
123.
The refusal to reschedule was also so arbitrary and so capricious as to violate Mr.
Jensens constitutional right to substantive due process as secured by the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
124.
At all times relevant herein, IPS, the Board, Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Odle, Ms. Nichols,
Mr. OConnor, Ms. Cosby, Ms. Bentley and Ms. Arnold were acting under the color of state law.
125.
Mr. Jensen has suffered and will continue to suffer damages because of IPS, the
Board, Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Odle, Ms. Nichols, Mr. OConnor, Ms. Cosby, Ms. Bentley and Ms.
Arnolds unconstitutional actions.
COUNT II
(Failure to Provide Proper Notice to Mr. Jensen as required by Indiana Code 20-28-7.52(a)(2) in Violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
126.
Cosby, Ms. Bentley and Ms. Arnold failed to provide proper notice or any sufficient notice to
Mr. Jensen as required by Indiana Code 20-28-7.5-2(a)(2), in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
127.
State of Indiana.
128.
The failure to provide Mr. Jensen with proper notice or any sufficient notice was
in direct violation of Mr. Jensens constitutional rights and guarantees as secured by the Due
20
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Right to
Due Course of Law under Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution.
129.
The failure to provide Mr. Jensen with proper notice or any sufficient notice was
also so arbitrary and so capricious as to violate Mr. Jensens constitutional right to substantive
due process as secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
130.
131.
COUNT III
(Failure to Advise Mr. Jensen of his Garrity Rights in Violation
of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution)
132.
addition, states that he was not advised of his Garrity rights prior to being interviewed by IPS,
actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
133.
During this investigatory interview with Mr. Given and during a second
investigatory interview, Mr. Given failed to advise Mr. Jensen of his Garrity rights.
134.
Mr. Jensen also met with Dr. Ferebee, the Superintendent of IPS on two (2)
occasions. Dr. Ferebee failed to advise Mr. Jensen of his Garrity rights during either of these
interviews.
135.
At the time of the interviews, Mr. Jensen was facing potential criminal
prosecution.
21
136.
IPS failed to give Mr. Jensen immunity from criminal prosecution on the basis of
his answers.
137.
Moreover, IPS, as a government employer, failed to warn Mr. Jensen that because
of his immunity, he could not refuse to answer the questions on the ground that the answers may
incriminate him.
138.
Mr. Jensen, under potential criminal prosecution at the time, was not advised of
any rights, but was instead terminated from IPS.

139.
Mr. Jensen has been damaged by this termination of his employment.
COUNT IV
(IPSs Decision to Terminate Mr. Jensen was Arbitrary and Capricious in Violation of the
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
140.
addition, states that IPS, the Board and Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Odle, Ms. Nichols, Mr. OConnor, Ms.
Cosby, Ms. Bentley and Ms. Arnolds decision to terminate his teaching and administrative
contracts was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
141.
State of Indiana.
142.
The arbitrary and capricious decision to terminate Mr. Jensens teaching and
administrative contracts was in direct violation of Mr. Jensens constitutional rights and
guarantees as secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and the Right to Due Course of Law under Article I, Section 12 of the
Indiana Constitution.
22
143.
The decision to terminate Mr. Jensens teaching and administrative contracts was
so arbitrary and so capricious as to violate Mr. Jensens constitutional right to substantive due
process as secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
144.
145.
COUNT V
(Petition for Review Pursuant to Ind. Code 4-21.5-5-14)
146.
Cosby, Ms. Bentley and Ms. Arnolds decision to terminate Mr. Jensens teaching and
administrative contracts at IPS was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion; contrary to
constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; and unsupported by substantial evidence.
147.
Pursuant to Ind. Code 4-21.5-5-14, the court shall grant relief . . . if it
determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been prejudiced by an agency action that is:
(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2)
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunityor (5) unsupported by substantial
evidence.
148.
The issues for determination by the IPS School Board were whether Mr. Jensens
immediate reporting of a potentially inappropriate relationship to Tina Hester, the Assistant

Superintendent of Human Resources, was a violation of IPS Procedure 3213.01, which provides:
23

Call the Title IX Coordinator at 226-3870 or the Assistant Superintendent,
Human Resources at 226-4580, who are the primary resource persons in these
matters.
and whether Mr. Jensen committed insubordination, neglect of duty and other good and
just cause by following the directives of his superiors.
149.
IPS needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Jensen
committed insubordination, neglect of duty and other good and just cause by following the
explicit procedures provided for in IPS Procedure 3213.01 and by following the directives of his
superiors.
150.
IPS needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Jensens
immediate reporting of a potentially inappropriate relationship to Dr. Tina Hester pursuant to IPS
Procedure 3213.01 constituted an offense warranting termination of Mr. Jensens 15-year career
for IPS.
151.
IPS failed to meet its burden of proof regarding its claim of insubordination
pursuant to Ind. Code 20-28-7.5-1(e)(2) by failing to present evidence that Mr. Jensen willfully
refused to obey state school laws or reasonable rules adopted by the IPS.
The evidence
presented did not meet the legal standard required under Ind. Code 20-28-7.5-1-(e)(2) because
Mr. Jensen did not willfully violate such a law, rule or policy.
152.
Indeed, IPS failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to rebut Mr. Jensens
testimony. The only individual to testify was Dr. Ferebee, who had no firsthand knowledge of
the situation. IPS presented absolutely no evidence to contradict Mr. Jensens testimony that Ms.
Hester directed him not to report the evidence.
153.
IPS failed to meet its burden of proof regarding its claim of neglect of duty
pursuant to Ind. Code 20-28-7.5-1(e)(5) by failing to present evidence that Mr. Jensen
24
allegedly refused to follow a directive of IPS. The evidence presented did not meet the legal
standard required under Ind. Code 20-28-7.5-1(e)(5) because Mr. Jensen did not refuse to
follow such a directive.
154.
Indeed, Mr. Jensen did follow the directives of his superiors as well as IPS
Procedure 3213.01. Moreover, IPS failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to rebut Mr.
Jensens testimony. The only individual to testify was Dr. Ferebee, who had no firsthand
knowledge of the situation. IPS presented absolutely no evidence to contradict Mr. Jensens
testimony that Ms. Hester directed him not to report the evidence.
155.
The administration failed to meet its burden of proof regarding its claim of other
good and just cause pursuant to Ind. Code 20-28-7.5-1(e)(7) by failing to present evidence
that Mr. Jensen allegedly refused to follow a directive of IPS. The evidence presented did not
meet the legal standard required under Ind. Code 20-28-7.5-1(e)(7) because Mr. Jensen did not
refuse to follow such a directive.
156.
Indeed, Mr. Jensen did follow the directives of his superiors as well as IPS
Procedure 3213.01. The only individual to testify was Dr. Ferebee, who had no firsthand
knowledge of the situation. IPS presented absolutely no evidence to contradict Mr. Jensens
testimony that Ms. Hester directed him not to report the evidence.
157.
IPS failed to present evidence that Mr. Jensens alleged conduct constituted
insubordination, neglect of duty and/or other good and just cause amounting to a
terminable offense. Indeed, IPS failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to rebut Mr. Jensens
testimony.
158.
Based the arbitrary and capricious decision by IPS, the Board, Ms. Sullivan, Mr.
Odle, Ms. Nichols, Mr. OConnor, Ms. Cosby, Ms. Bentley and Ms. Arnold and based on this
25
lack of evidence, the Boards termination of Mr. Jensens administrative and teaching contracts
should be reversed.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, William Jensen, prays for a judgment in his favor against
Defendants, and that the following relief be awarded to the Plaintiff:
a. A ruling reversing the Boards Findings and decision to terminate Mr.
Jensens teaching and administrative contracts;
b. An award of damages to compensate Mr. Jensen for damages to his career and
reputation by the unlawful practices described above;
c. Compensatory damages and consequential damages;
d. Attorneys fees and costs;
e. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and
f. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the
public interest and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
IX.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Pursuant to the rules of pleading and practice, Mr. Jensen reserves the right to assert
additional violations of state and federal state law.
X.
JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
26
Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1-1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 28

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Southern District of __________

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Indianapolis Public Schools, et al.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-2047
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendants name and address) Diane Arnold, Commissioner, Individually and in her Official Capacity
The Board of School Commissioners for the City of Indianapolis
120 East Walnut Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Kevin W. Betz and Jamie A. Maddox
Betz + Blevins
One Indiana Square, Suite 1660
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 687-2222
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)
u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)
; or
u I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)
, and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or
u I served the summons on (name of individual)
, who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date)
; or
u I returned the summons unexecuted because
u Other (specify):
; or
I served the summons via certified mail, return receipt requested.
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Servers signature
Printed name and title
Servers address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) Kelly Bentley, Commissioner, Individually and in her Official Capacity

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) The Board of School Commissioners for the City of Indianapolis
c/o Mary Ann Sullivan, Board President

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) Gayle Cosby, Commissioner, Individually and in her Official Capacity

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) The Board of School Commissioners for the City of Indianapolis
c/o Jonathan L. Mayes, Esquire
Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP
111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) LaNier Echols, Secretary, Individually and in her Official Capacity

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) Michael O'Connor, Commissioner, Individually and in his Official Capacity

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) Sam Odle, Vice President, Individually and in his Official Capacity

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) Mary Ann Sullivan, Board President, Individually and in her Official Capacity

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) Indianapolis Public Schools
c/o Mary Ann Sullivan, Board President

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00


for the

Indiana
__________
William Jensen
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

To: (Defendants name and address) Indianapolis Public Schools
c/o Hudnall A. Pfeiffer, Esquire
Ellen E. Boshkoff, Esquire
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
300 N. Meridian St., Suite 2700

Betz + Blevins
(317) 687-2222
CLERK OF COURT
Date:


PROOF OF SERVICE

on (date)
; or
on (date)
, who is

on (date)
; or
u Other (specify):
; or
My fees are $
for travel and $
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00

William Jensen's Filing

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

William Jensen's Filing

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cause No. 1:16-cv-2047

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2

Plaintiff William W. Jensen resided in Marion County, Indiana at all times

relevant to this action.

Defendant Indianapolis Public Schools is the corporate name of a public school

system located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Defendant The Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis, the

governing body of IPS, is located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Marion County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

Defendant Michael OConnor is a Member of the Board, and he resided in

Marion County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 3

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over all parties.

The causes of action arose in Indianapolis, Indiana which is in Marion County,

Jensens claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Jensens Indiana state law claims.

William Jensen is a resident and citizen of Marion County, Indiana.

Defendant Indianapolis Public Schools is a public school system located in

Defendant The Board of School Commissions of the City of Indianapolis is the

Marion County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 4

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

Defendant Michael OConnor is a Member of the Board, and he resided in

Marion County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

County, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

Jensen has no prior discipline.

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 5

everything from ninth grade composition to AP English Literature.

Most recently he served as Assistant Principal in charge of the Freshman Center

His education includes a BA in English from Lawrence University in Appleton,

Wisconsin and an MA in Education from Indiana Wesleyan University. He earned his

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 6

In addition, although Mr. Jensens counsel requested by written letter that

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 7

As required by Indiana Code 20-28-7.5-2(a)(2), IPS failed to provide proper

notice or at least sufficient notice to Mr. Jensen.

Jensen violated the named Policy and Administrative Guideline.

provided no factual basis whatsoever for the claim of insubordination.

Moreover, counsel for IPS stated during an additional prehearing conference on

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 8

Potentially because no reason or reasons for contract cancellation were provided,

The new legal claim of insubordination simply had no factual support

whatsoever from a review of the letter.

On February 5, 2016, IPS announced that a public hearing would be held on

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 9

Dr. Ferbee also learned of at least an inappropriate relationship between Shana

Taylor and the student on February 17, 2016.

On February 23, 2016, Mr. Cosand reported the inappropriate relationship to

On March 2, 2016, the Shana Taylor story broke publicly.

Case 1:16-cv-02047-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 10

Report on April 12, 2016.

June 30, 2016.